In which case Boris and Co have clearly not been listening to top scientists. Maybe they have been listening to those at the other end of the scale - bottom scientists. Or in Matt Hancock's case - not listening to either end.
I don't know what top scientists have got to add to the debate. Top scientists are obviously physicists; studying the centrifugal forces and mass, velocity, et., of spinning tops. Bottom scientists would be a bit closer, but still would not have a lot to offer.
In such matters I believe the politicians as much as I believe scientists, which just goes to show how far our civic culture has regressed.
It's bad enough having to listen to politicians, but when scientists and economists get together and spout their nonsense, we might just as well look out of the window than listen to the weather forecast on the awful BBC.
Seriously though, folks. The term "scientist" has become so debased - applied to person who does no science but just collates the works of other "scientists", themselves dodgy grant grabbers - nobody believes them any more, unless they are backing the correct hobby horse. Want your cause supported then have a trawl for a suitable scientist, and if none are appropriate commission a bit of research backed by a huge fund, with promise of more to come if the results warrant it. Just be more specific and call them what they are, chemist, astronomer, bug-studier, statistician, mathematician, social scientist, whatever. Or just a glorified librarian. Then we will have a better idea of how worthy the opinion is.
Sam - yes it does show how far our civic culture has regressed. A shameful state of affairs in my view.
Scrobs - or go out for a walk. I don't bother with the nonsense except as a way to keep tabs on the babble and as a source of blog posts.
Doonhamer - I don't have the link, but not so long ago I read an account by a newly appointed university research scientist who was told that his job was to bring in $300,000 per year in grants. That was it - no other objective.
5 comments:
I don't know what top scientists have got to add to the debate. Top scientists are obviously physicists; studying the centrifugal forces and mass, velocity, et., of spinning tops. Bottom scientists would be a bit closer, but still would not have a lot to offer.
In such matters I believe the politicians as much as I believe scientists, which just goes to show how far our civic culture has regressed.
It's bad enough having to listen to politicians, but when scientists and economists get together and spout their nonsense, we might just as well look out of the window than listen to the weather forecast on the awful BBC.
Ah, I dream of being a bottom* scientist.
But at my age I would just be taken for a slightly soiled elderly gentleman.
(and eyes, tops not so much.)
Seriously though, folks.
The term "scientist" has become so debased - applied to person who does no science but just collates the works of other "scientists", themselves dodgy grant grabbers - nobody believes them any more, unless they are backing the correct hobby horse.
Want your cause supported then have a trawl for a suitable scientist, and if none are appropriate commission a bit of research backed by a huge fund, with promise of more to come if the results warrant it.
Just be more specific and call them what they are, chemist, astronomer, bug-studier, statistician, mathematician, social scientist, whatever. Or just a glorified librarian. Then we will have a better idea of how worthy the opinion is.
Sam - yes it does show how far our civic culture has regressed. A shameful state of affairs in my view.
Scrobs - or go out for a walk. I don't bother with the nonsense except as a way to keep tabs on the babble and as a source of blog posts.
Doonhamer - I don't have the link, but not so long ago I read an account by a newly appointed university research scientist who was told that his job was to bring in $300,000 per year in grants. That was it - no other objective.
Post a Comment